Debate Now Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?

[IsaacNewton]

Homosexuality exists in mammals other than humans so it is obviously a genetic predisposition.

 

[Boss]

Another possibility is that people who say that it’s a choice are confused about the difference between sexual orientation- who people are attracted to- and the act of having sex. There is not reason to believe that the sexual orientation of homosexuality is a choice any more than heterosexuality is a choice. That is just logical. However, who you have sex with is a choice. A choice, I might add, that everyone has a right to make.

Well, I am not confused but that has been my point. You're not a "homosexual" until you've engaged in a homosexual act. I'm sorry... maybe you have the sexual desires to be a homosexual? Maybe you have the sexual desires to be a necrophiliac? Until you actually make the choice to act on your desires, you're not one. So while a person might be genetically predisposed to be a homosexual, it is their choice that makes them one.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Another possibility is that people who say that it’s a choice are confused about the difference between sexual orientation- who people are attracted to- and the act of having sex. There is not reason to believe that the sexual orientation of homosexuality is a choice any more than heterosexuality is a choice. That is just logical. However, who you have sex with is a choice. A choice, I might add, that everyone has a right to make.

Well, I am not confused but that has been my point. You're not a "homosexual" until you've engaged in a homosexual act. I'm sorry... maybe you have the sexual desires to be a homosexual? Maybe you have the sexual desires to be a necrophiliac? Until you actually make the choice to act on your desires, you're not one. So while a person might be genetically predisposed to be a homosexual, it is their choice that makes them one.

Sure Boss. I remember you. The world according to Boss. If Boss says it, it must be true. Is that how it goes Boss?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

yes most "homosexuals" were born to heterosexuals except of course for those who were born to homosexuals using the same methods that heterosexuals sometimes use when they can't have children in the "normal way".and they will most likely be heterosexual.The point is that for children to have a trait related to genetics , it is not necessary for the parents to have those traits. Google epigenetic and recessive genes

Google identical twins.

I am well aware of the fact that 100% of identical twins do not share the same sexual orientation. I am also aware of the fact that no, specific "gay gene" has been identified. None of that means that there is no genetic component. And as I have said many times, regardless of the genetic/ biological factor, to say that it is a choice is ridiculous. Again...google epigenetics

Google "logic"
But, I guess I can understand wanting to believe something you can't prove. I believe in God.

Actually, I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't need to prove anything. Neither do gay people. Gay rights have advanced nicely and will continue to do so without proving a genetic link. The issue has been inconsequential from a legal standpoint. The public,- which as you know - has been increasingly supportive of gay rights does not seem to care much either.

It is those who are less than enthusiastic about gay rights who seem to be desperate to prove it's a choice as an excuse to marginalize gay people- implying that they should not be taken seriously.

As for myself, I find it interesting from an academic standpoint. I read and weigh the evidence and the evidence - regardless of whether you or anybody wants to believe it- points to an epigenetic predisposition.

I really don't give a rat's ass what you do in your bedroom. I actually wish a legally binding contract tying homosexual couples together akin to marriage. Just don't redefine a word to fit your lifestyle.
Think up your own name. Call it "civil union" or, hell! How about "homogenization"? Just don't call it "marriage" because it's not marriage.

What do you care what they call it? I just snicker and put marriage in quotes and go on with my life.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Correct, there are heterosexual who can't procreate due to a genetic defect and or due to an accident.

So, are you saying that homosexuality is a genetic defect?

No! Absolutely not. I am saying that those who consider homosexuals to be defective because they cannot procreate ( although they can and do- just not in the so called "normal way") then they must also consider some heterosexuals to me defective.

Heterosexuals who can't procreate do have a defect.. No different than a person who needs eyeglasses has a defect, as an example.

That of course assumes that some sort of accident didn't prevent them from being able to procreate.

And no, homosexuals can't procreate with each other under ANY circumstances.

No, not with each other but a Lesbian can carry a child and a gay man can contribute sperm. So what the fuck is the point of all of this? It is really about love, commitment relationships and family. Yes family. Gay people have families and are parents. This whole thing about procreation and who can and who can't have children , and who is "defective" is as stupid as stupid gets and is totally pointless not to mention way off topic.

The point is being homosexual is a CHOICE. One that I personally think is between the gay and another consenting adult, so do whatever makes you happy. Just don't try to convince me that you were born gay. You weren't.

You say that it is a choice with such assertiveness and assurance while offering no evidence to support that claim, and making no attempt to refute the evidence to the contrary. It is apparent that you have a deep emotional investment in believing that it’s a choice to the point where it drowns out any possibility of an intellectual inquiry into the subject. Why is that?

I had said previously that I believe that it is largely the same people who are- to varying degrees – opposed to gays having full and equal rights that also need to believe that being gay is a choice. I also said that I think that is done as a way of justifying the marginalization of gays and of homosexuality as something frivolous that need not be taken seriously. It would appear that I was pretty much on the mark with that.

Another possibility is that people who say that it’s a choice are confused about the difference between sexual orientation- who people are attracted to- and the act of having sex. There is no reason to believe that the sexual orientation of homosexuality is a choice any more than heterosexuality is a choice. That is just logical. However, who you have sex with is a choice. A choice, I might add, that everyone has a right to make.

So what exactly is your problem? Why does this choice thing matter to you and what are the implications- in your mind- for the trajectory of gay rights? The whole issue of “choice” as well as that of “procreation” is so over with these days that you might as well get over it too. Few care about it and regardless- it will change nothing.

PS: Your right in saying that I was not born gay. I'm heterosexual .Can you possibly get your head around that?

Are you denying that we are biological machines designed to procreate? That's exactly what we are. NO ONE is "born not to procreate" and obviously the ONLY way a homosexual could procreate would be to have heterosexual sex (we're not talking about medical impregnation b/c that has nothing to do with what we were born to do) So what you are saying is that homosexuality is a genetic defect. PERIOD.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No! Absolutely not. I am saying that those who consider homosexuals to be defective because they cannot procreate ( although they can and do- just not in the so called "normal way") then they must also consider some heterosexuals to me defective.

Heterosexuals who can't procreate do have a defect.. No different than a person who needs eyeglasses has a defect, as an example.

That of course assumes that some sort of accident didn't prevent them from being able to procreate.

And no, homosexuals can't procreate with each other under ANY circumstances.

No, not with each other but a Lesbian can carry a child and a gay man can contribute sperm. So what the fuck is the point of all of this? It is really about love, commitment relationships and family. Yes family. Gay people have families and are parents. This whole thing about procreation and who can and who can't have children , and who is "defective" is as stupid as stupid gets and is totally pointless not to mention way off topic.

The point is being homosexual is a CHOICE. One that I personally think is between the gay and another consenting adult, so do whatever makes you happy. Just don't try to convince me that you were born gay. You weren't.

You say that it is a choice with such assertiveness and assurance while offering no evidence to support that claim, and making no attempt to refute the evidence to the contrary. It is apparent that you have a deep emotional investment in believing that it’s a choice to the point where it drowns out any possibility of an intellectual inquiry into the subject. Why is that?

I had said previously that I believe that it is largely the same people who are- to varying degrees – opposed to gays having full and equal rights that also need to believe that being gay is a choice. I also said that I think that is done as a way of justifying the marginalization of gays and of homosexuality as something frivolous that need not be taken seriously. It would appear that I was pretty much on the mark with that.

Another possibility is that people who say that it’s a choice are confused about the difference between sexual orientation- who people are attracted to- and the act of having sex. There is no reason to believe that the sexual orientation of homosexuality is a choice any more than heterosexuality is a choice. That is just logical. However, who you have sex with is a choice. A choice, I might add, that everyone has a right to make.

So what exactly is your problem? Why does this choice thing matter to you and what are the implications- in your mind- for the trajectory of gay rights? The whole issue of “choice” as well as that of “procreation” is so over with these days that you might as well get over it too. Few care about it and regardless- it will change nothing.

PS: Your right in saying that I was not born gay. I'm heterosexual .Can you possibly get your head around that?

Are you denying that we are biological machines designed to procreate? That's exactly what we are. NO ONE is "born not to procreate" and obviously the ONLY way a homosexual could procreate would be to have heterosexual sex (we're not talking about medical impregnation b/c that has nothing to do with what we were born to do) So what you are saying is that homosexuality is a genetic defect. PERIOD.

We are biological machines designed to do many things. Do you realize that you have now alternately said that homosexuality is a choice and that it is a biological defect? You are so confused! Feel free to continue to cling to your strange ideas. They matter little in reality,

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Heterosexuals who can't procreate do have a defect.. No different than a person who needs eyeglasses has a defect, as an example.

That of course assumes that some sort of accident didn't prevent them from being able to procreate.

And no, homosexuals can't procreate with each other under ANY circumstances.

No, not with each other but a Lesbian can carry a child and a gay man can contribute sperm. So what the fuck is the point of all of this? It is really about love, commitment relationships and family. Yes family. Gay people have families and are parents. This whole thing about procreation and who can and who can't have children , and who is "defective" is as stupid as stupid gets and is totally pointless not to mention way off topic.

The point is being homosexual is a CHOICE. One that I personally think is between the gay and another consenting adult, so do whatever makes you happy. Just don't try to convince me that you were born gay. You weren't.

You say that it is a choice with such assertiveness and assurance while offering no evidence to support that claim, and making no attempt to refute the evidence to the contrary. It is apparent that you have a deep emotional investment in believing that it’s a choice to the point where it drowns out any possibility of an intellectual inquiry into the subject. Why is that?

I had said previously that I believe that it is largely the same people who are- to varying degrees – opposed to gays having full and equal rights that also need to believe that being gay is a choice. I also said that I think that is done as a way of justifying the marginalization of gays and of homosexuality as something frivolous that need not be taken seriously. It would appear that I was pretty much on the mark with that.

Another possibility is that people who say that it’s a choice are confused about the difference between sexual orientation- who people are attracted to- and the act of having sex. There is no reason to believe that the sexual orientation of homosexuality is a choice any more than heterosexuality is a choice. That is just logical. However, who you have sex with is a choice. A choice, I might add, that everyone has a right to make.

So what exactly is your problem? Why does this choice thing matter to you and what are the implications- in your mind- for the trajectory of gay rights? The whole issue of “choice” as well as that of “procreation” is so over with these days that you might as well get over it too. Few care about it and regardless- it will change nothing.

PS: Your right in saying that I was not born gay. I'm heterosexual .Can you possibly get your head around that?

Are you denying that we are biological machines designed to procreate? That's exactly what we are. NO ONE is "born not to procreate" and obviously the ONLY way a homosexual could procreate would be to have heterosexual sex (we're not talking about medical impregnation b/c that has nothing to do with what we were born to do) So what you are saying is that homosexuality is a genetic defect. PERIOD.

We are biological machines designed to do many things. Do you realize that you have now alternately said that homosexuality is a choice and that it is a biological defect? You are so confused! Feel free to continue to cling to your strange ideas. They matter little in reality,

no I have not . I have always said it's a choice. I have said that YOU are saying it is a genetic defect.

 

[Votto]

That's it. No fancy thesis, no viewpoint of my own (yet). All that lies here is a challenge to you the reader to prove the origins of homosexuality. Who here can make the more compelling case for their side?

The rules are as follows:

1. No ad hominem (personal attacks)
2. No mention of any political party (Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, et cetera).
3. No anti-Gay or anti-Christian commentary.
4. All arguments must be substantiated by citing credible and scientific sources.
5. No arguments based on emotional viewpoints.
6. No discussion regarding religious or non religious views of Homosexuality. Let the science (or your interpretation therein) do the talking.
7. Attempts to derail this thread will be actively reported to forum staff.
8. This thread will be governed under "Zone 1" regulations.

Who says it is an either or? Why not say both can contribute? Also, what about bisexuals?

Arguments for it being a choice are rooted in cultures like ancient Sparta and Greece. All these guy dabbled in gay sex, it was simply their culture.

Now do some have more natural inclinations by being effeminate? Sure, I think so.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, not with each other but a Lesbian can carry a child and a gay man can contribute sperm. So what the fuck is the point of all of this? It is really about love, commitment relationships and family. Yes family. Gay people have families and are parents. This whole thing about procreation and who can and who can't have children , and who is "defective" is as stupid as stupid gets and is totally pointless not to mention way off topic.

The point is being homosexual is a CHOICE. One that I personally think is between the gay and another consenting adult, so do whatever makes you happy. Just don't try to convince me that you were born gay. You weren't.

You say that it is a choice with such assertiveness and assurance while offering no evidence to support that claim, and making no attempt to refute the evidence to the contrary. It is apparent that you have a deep emotional investment in believing that it’s a choice to the point where it drowns out any possibility of an intellectual inquiry into the subject. Why is that?

I had said previously that I believe that it is largely the same people who are- to varying degrees – opposed to gays having full and equal rights that also need to believe that being gay is a choice. I also said that I think that is done as a way of justifying the marginalization of gays and of homosexuality as something frivolous that need not be taken seriously. It would appear that I was pretty much on the mark with that.

Another possibility is that people who say that it’s a choice are confused about the difference between sexual orientation- who people are attracted to- and the act of having sex. There is no reason to believe that the sexual orientation of homosexuality is a choice any more than heterosexuality is a choice. That is just logical. However, who you have sex with is a choice. A choice, I might add, that everyone has a right to make.

So what exactly is your problem? Why does this choice thing matter to you and what are the implications- in your mind- for the trajectory of gay rights? The whole issue of “choice” as well as that of “procreation” is so over with these days that you might as well get over it too. Few care about it and regardless- it will change nothing.

PS: Your right in saying that I was not born gay. I'm heterosexual .Can you possibly get your head around that?

Are you denying that we are biological machines designed to procreate? That's exactly what we are. NO ONE is "born not to procreate" and obviously the ONLY way a homosexual could procreate would be to have heterosexual sex (we're not talking about medical impregnation b/c that has nothing to do with what we were born to do) So what you are saying is that homosexuality is a genetic defect. PERIOD.

We are biological machines designed to do many things. Do you realize that you have now alternately said that homosexuality is a choice and that it is a biological defect? You are so confused! Feel free to continue to cling to your strange ideas. They matter little in reality,

no I have not . I have always said it's a choice. I have said that YOU are saying it is a genetic defect.

. You can say whatever the hell you want. Let me remind you though that this is supposed to be a debate. In a debate, one is expected to back up their assertions with facts and logic. All that you have offered is an appeal to ignorance type of logical fallacy.

 

[Ernie S.]

Google identical twins.

I am well aware of the fact that 100% of identical twins do not share the same sexual orientation. I am also aware of the fact that no, specific "gay gene" has been identified. None of that means that there is no genetic component. And as I have said many times, regardless of the genetic/ biological factor, to say that it is a choice is ridiculous. Again...google epigenetics

Google "logic"
But, I guess I can understand wanting to believe something you can't prove. I believe in God.

Actually, I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't need to prove anything. Neither do gay people. Gay rights have advanced nicely and will continue to do so without proving a genetic link. The issue has been inconsequential from a legal standpoint. The public,- which as you know - has been increasingly supportive of gay rights does not seem to care much either.

It is those who are less than enthusiastic about gay rights who seem to be desperate to prove it's a choice as an excuse to marginalize gay people- implying that they should not be taken seriously.

As for myself, I find it interesting from an academic standpoint. I read and weigh the evidence and the evidence - regardless of whether you or anybody wants to believe it- points to an epigenetic predisposition.

I really don't give a rat's ass what you do in your bedroom. I actually wish a legally binding contract tying homosexual couples together akin to marriage. Just don't redefine a word to fit your lifestyle.
Think up your own name. Call it "civil union" or, hell! How about "homogenization"? Just don't call it "marriage" because it's not marriage.

What do you care what they call it? I just snicker and put marriage in quotes and go on with my life.

I care about words. They mean something and should not be used improperly to promote agenda to create an effect.
Take "hate" for example. Hate is an extremely strong negative emotion, but Liberals will say I "hate" Mexicans because I want to protect our borders. That I "hate" gay people because I don't want them to redefine the word "marriage".
I hate no one, least of all people I have never met.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I am well aware of the fact that 100% of identical twins do not share the same sexual orientation. I am also aware of the fact that no, specific "gay gene" has been identified. None of that means that there is no genetic component. And as I have said many times, regardless of the genetic/ biological factor, to say that it is a choice is ridiculous. Again...google epigenetics

Google "logic"
But, I guess I can understand wanting to believe something you can't prove. I believe in God.

Actually, I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't need to prove anything. Neither do gay people. Gay rights have advanced nicely and will continue to do so without proving a genetic link. The issue has been inconsequential from a legal standpoint. The public,- which as you know - has been increasingly supportive of gay rights does not seem to care much either.

It is those who are less than enthusiastic about gay rights who seem to be desperate to prove it's a choice as an excuse to marginalize gay people- implying that they should not be taken seriously.

As for myself, I find it interesting from an academic standpoint. I read and weigh the evidence and the evidence - regardless of whether you or anybody wants to believe it- points to an epigenetic predisposition.

I really don't give a rat's ass what you do in your bedroom. I actually wish a legally binding contract tying homosexual couples together akin to marriage. Just don't redefine a word to fit your lifestyle.
Think up your own name. Call it "civil union" or, hell! How about "homogenization"? Just don't call it "marriage" because it's not marriage.

What do you care what they call it? I just snicker and put marriage in quotes and go on with my life.

I care about words. They mean something and should not be used improperly to promote agenda to create an effect.
Take "hate" for example. Hate is an extremely strong negative emotion, but Liberals will say I "hate" Mexicans because I want to protect our borders. That I "hate" gay people because I don't want them to redefine the word "marriage".
I hate no one, least of all people I have never met.

I can accept that Ernie, but given the REAL problems facing our country right now, this fight over the use of the word marriage is NOTHING and should not occupy one iota of our time or effort.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I am well aware of the fact that 100% of identical twins do not share the same sexual orientation. I am also aware of the fact that no, specific "gay gene" has been identified. None of that means that there is no genetic component. And as I have said many times, regardless of the genetic/ biological factor, to say that it is a choice is ridiculous. Again...google epigenetics

Google "logic"
But, I guess I can understand wanting to believe something you can't prove. I believe in God.

Actually, I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't need to prove anything. Neither do gay people. Gay rights have advanced nicely and will continue to do so without proving a genetic link. The issue has been inconsequential from a legal standpoint. The public,- which as you know - has been increasingly supportive of gay rights does not seem to care much either.

It is those who are less than enthusiastic about gay rights who seem to be desperate to prove it's a choice as an excuse to marginalize gay people- implying that they should not be taken seriously.

As for myself, I find it interesting from an academic standpoint. I read and weigh the evidence and the evidence - regardless of whether you or anybody wants to believe it- points to an epigenetic predisposition.

I really don't give a rat's ass what you do in your bedroom. I actually wish a legally binding contract tying homosexual couples together akin to marriage. Just don't redefine a word to fit your lifestyle.
Think up your own name. Call it "civil union" or, hell! How about "homogenization"? Just don't call it "marriage" because it's not marriage.

What do you care what they call it? I just snicker and put marriage in quotes and go on with my life.

I care about words. They mean something and should not be used improperly to promote agenda to create an effect.
Take "hate" for example. Hate is an extremely strong negative emotion, but Liberals will say I "hate" Mexicans because I want to protect our borders. That I "hate" gay people because I don't want them to redefine the word "marriage".
I hate no one, least of all people I have never met.

Anything new on the genetic issue or is it time to ditch this so called debate?

As for "marriage" you might as well get over it and suck it up.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Google "logic"
But, I guess I can understand wanting to believe something you can't prove. I believe in God.

Actually, I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't need to prove anything. Neither do gay people. Gay rights have advanced nicely and will continue to do so without proving a genetic link. The issue has been inconsequential from a legal standpoint. The public,- which as you know - has been increasingly supportive of gay rights does not seem to care much either.

It is those who are less than enthusiastic about gay rights who seem to be desperate to prove it's a choice as an excuse to marginalize gay people- implying that they should not be taken seriously.

As for myself, I find it interesting from an academic standpoint. I read and weigh the evidence and the evidence - regardless of whether you or anybody wants to believe it- points to an epigenetic predisposition.

I really don't give a rat's ass what you do in your bedroom. I actually wish a legally binding contract tying homosexual couples together akin to marriage. Just don't redefine a word to fit your lifestyle.
Think up your own name. Call it "civil union" or, hell! How about "homogenization"? Just don't call it "marriage" because it's not marriage.

What do you care what they call it? I just snicker and put marriage in quotes and go on with my life.

I care about words. They mean something and should not be used improperly to promote agenda to create an effect.
Take "hate" for example. Hate is an extremely strong negative emotion, but Liberals will say I "hate" Mexicans because I want to protect our borders. That I "hate" gay people because I don't want them to redefine the word "marriage".
I hate no one, least of all people I have never met.

I can accept that Ernie, but given the REAL problems facing our country right now, this fight over the use of the word marriage is NOTHING and should not occupy one iota of our time or effort.

Who's fighting??

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Actually, I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't need to prove anything. Neither do gay people. Gay rights have advanced nicely and will continue to do so without proving a genetic link. The issue has been inconsequential from a legal standpoint. The public,- which as you know - has been increasingly supportive of gay rights does not seem to care much either.

It is those who are less than enthusiastic about gay rights who seem to be desperate to prove it's a choice as an excuse to marginalize gay people- implying that they should not be taken seriously.

As for myself, I find it interesting from an academic standpoint. I read and weigh the evidence and the evidence - regardless of whether you or anybody wants to believe it- points to an epigenetic predisposition.

I really don't give a rat's ass what you do in your bedroom. I actually wish a legally binding contract tying homosexual couples together akin to marriage. Just don't redefine a word to fit your lifestyle.
Think up your own name. Call it "civil union" or, hell! How about "homogenization"? Just don't call it "marriage" because it's not marriage.

What do you care what they call it? I just snicker and put marriage in quotes and go on with my life.

I care about words. They mean something and should not be used improperly to promote agenda to create an effect.
Take "hate" for example. Hate is an extremely strong negative emotion, but Liberals will say I "hate" Mexicans because I want to protect our borders. That I "hate" gay people because I don't want them to redefine the word "marriage".
I hate no one, least of all people I have never met.

I can accept that Ernie, but given the REAL problems facing our country right now, this fight over the use of the word marriage is NOTHING and should not occupy one iota of our time or effort.

Who's fighting??

The people arguing about the meaning of the word marriage

 

[Divine Wind]

That's it. No fancy thesis, no viewpoint of my own (yet). All that lies here is a challenge to you the reader to prove the origins of homosexuality. Who here can make the more compelling case for their side?

The rules are as follows:

1. No ad hominem (personal attacks)
2. No mention of any political party (Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, et cetera).
3. No anti-Gay or anti-Christian commentary.
4. All arguments must be substantiated by citing credible and scientific sources.
5. No arguments based on emotional viewpoints.
6. No discussion regarding religious or non religious views of Homosexuality. Let the science (or your interpretation therein) do the talking.
7. Attempts to derail this thread will be actively reported to forum staff.
8. This thread will be governed under "Zone 1" regulations.

Genetic. Who here chose to be straight? We're wired for a sexual preference. Even if it's not fully understood how that works, every person here knows their personal sexual preference is innate, not a choice.

 

[sealybobo]

That's it. No fancy thesis, no viewpoint of my own (yet). All that lies here is a challenge to you the reader to prove the origins of homosexuality. Who here can make the more compelling case for their side?

The rules are as follows:

1. No ad hominem (personal attacks)
2. No mention of any political party (Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, et cetera).
3. No anti-Gay or anti-Christian commentary.
4. All arguments must be substantiated by citing credible and scientific sources.
5. No arguments based on emotional viewpoints.
6. No discussion regarding religious or non religious views of Homosexuality. Let the science (or your interpretation therein) do the talking.
7. Attempts to derail this thread will be actively reported to forum staff.
8. This thread will be governed under "Zone 1" regulations.

Is homosexuality a choice? Depends on who you ask.

To me it's not a choice. Gag me with a spoon, right? But as a bi they'll tell you its a choice. What's true for you ain't necessarily true for everyone.

Then there's different levels of bi. Prefers Gay but would have sex with a member of the opposite sex or visa versa.

I'm always fascinated with straights who go to prison and fuck guys there but never would in the real world.

 

[Divine Wind]

...I'm always fascinated with straights who go to prison and fuck guys there but never would in the real world.

1. There's a difference between sexual preference and sexual behavior. Do 50 year old husbands with 3 kids suddenly turn gay? Or were they always gay, but behaved straight?

2. Rape is more about power, not sex. Sex in prison is more about power than sex.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

That's it. No fancy thesis, no viewpoint of my own (yet). All that lies here is a challenge to you the reader to prove the origins of homosexuality. Who here can make the more compelling case for their side?

The rules are as follows:

1. No ad hominem (personal attacks)
2. No mention of any political party (Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, et cetera).
3. No anti-Gay or anti-Christian commentary.
4. All arguments must be substantiated by citing credible and scientific sources.
5. No arguments based on emotional viewpoints.
6. No discussion regarding religious or non religious views of Homosexuality. Let the science (or your interpretation therein) do the talking.
7. Attempts to derail this thread will be actively reported to forum staff.
8. This thread will be governed under "Zone 1" regulations.

Genetic. Who here chose to be straight? We're wired for a sexual preference. Even if it's not fully understood how that works, every person here knows their personal sexual preference is innate, not a choice.

\

If we were "wired" for sexual preference there would be a gene that controlled such.


Jesus, why do liberals hate science?

 

[sealybobo]

...I'm always fascinated with straights who go to prison and fuck guys there but never would in the real world.

1. There's a difference between sexual preference and sexual behavior. Do 50 year old husbands with 3 kids suddenly turn gay? Or were they always gay, but behaved straight?

2. Rape is more about power, not sex. Sex in prison is more about power than sex.

No I'm talking about paying one of "the girls" to let them bang them. Ever see the longest yard? The sistas

 

[Divine Wind]

If we were "wired" for sexual preference there would be a gene that controlled such.


Jesus, why do liberals hate science?

1) Why? There's no straight gene. Did you choose to be straight or were you born that way? did you make a conscious decision to like pussy or cock? If so, when did you make that decision? Was it at a certain age or do you wrestle with it daily? Most people like myself are born straight, although that preference doesn't really come out until puberty.

2) Ask them. Why do you hate science?